What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Esquilax]

Like I said, unless we were brainwashed or have a mental disorder, I think we all instinctively know what is moral and what is immoral. We all know why it is immoral to hurt other people. Christianity reafirms that this is immoral, and helps me understand *why* it is. If Christianity taught that torturing children is good, for example, it would completely go against my gut instinct and I would never give it a second thought..

Two thoughts: For one, you've now reduced morality to what you feel in your gut. Christianity- or at least the version of it you accept- aligns with what you instinctively feel to be moral, and therefore you accept it. Do you think there's anything substantive behind your instincts in this regard, like actual reasons to support those instincts? For example, do you think murder is immoral because of the aversion you have to it, or can you supply pragmatic reasons for why that aversion might exist in the first place?

Secondly, you've said twice now that your religion helps you to understand why certain things are moral and immoral: care to share that why with the class?

[Catholic_Lady]

I must admit, I have not opened reading material and I apologize.  I have been very overwhelmed trying to answer all of you and have not had the time. If you want to tell me something, it is better if you cut and paste or if you put in your own words. If you post a link I probably won't get to it.

Well, I had thought you were interested. Forgive my misapprehension.

No need to apologize. Apart from being overwhelmed with trying to address everyone, it's also some laziness on my part, and I'll admit that. I'd much rather have discussions rather than be given reading material. I appreciate you taking the time though.

---

I'm not sure how it still counts as cherry picking when I say I feel the *whole* Old Testament is written in allegorical form, rather than just the bad stuff....

But if that is how you feel then I can respect your opinion and move on.

It isn't my "opinion" -- it is a fact that you are selecting one part of the Bible to read literally, and selecting another to read figuratively, and that is cherry-picking. You like the NT because it comports to the morality that you're already bringing to the table.

As for moving on, I don't see any great interest in discussing with yet another believer why their particular view is correct, given the fact that you're not bringing anything to the table except "these are my beliefs". I don't see why your moral sensibility has any privilege or gravitas, and it's clearly just as relative as mine.  The difference between you and I is that I'm responsible enough to own my own moral sensibilities, and adapt them to what I consider good, whereas you adopt the one that seems closest to your views, and try to ignore the parts which cause you mental dissonance.

I think your approach to morality is shallow, and I'm not interested in pursuing it any further.

That's fine. I can respect that.

---

Actually, the percentage of Catholic priests who molest children is equal to or slightly less than the percentage of men in general who molest children. The greatest number of people who molest children are teachers. So just know that the molestation of children is not some sort of "Catholic priest thing." People from all faiths and all walks of life can do horrible things, and priests are no different.

Well, the difference between priests and the rest is that the rest don't claim to be Men of God.  Why does this have to be explained to you?

With moral authority comes moral responsibility.  Arguing that "others do it too!" is no excuse for men who claim to have Christian morality as part of their job description. Sickening, just sickening, the way Catholics fall over themselves to avoid the obvious issues of moral responsibility.

Tell us again how your god is the fount of morality.  What a shame that this majestic god of yours cannot inspire even his own holy men to behave in a morally upright manner.

I agree completely. Priests are to be held to higher standards and it's even worse when something like this is done by a person who claims to be a man of God. I was only saying that we shouldn't steroetype priests as molesters when so few of them do it, especially compared to other men. That's all I was saying.

---

I did not "examine" them, but from what I knew about them, I knew they were not quite right.

So you didn't study them, but are still comfortable with your uninformed decision.  Got it.

Correct. I did not "study" other religions out there. Just used my judgement based on what I knew about them, and I felt confident enough in my examination of Catholicism to decide I believed in it.

---

Like I said, unless we were brainwashed or have a mental disorder, I think we all instinctively know what is moral and what is immoral. We all know why it is immoral to hurt other people. Christianity reafirms that this is immoral, and helps me understand *why* it is. If Christianity taught that torturing children is good, for example, it would completely go against my gut instinct and I would never give it a second thought..

Two thoughts: For one, you've now reduced morality to what you feel in your gut. Christianity- or at least the version of it you accept- aligns with what you instinctively feel to be moral, and therefore you accept it. Do you think there's anything substantive behind your instincts in this regard, like actual reasons to support those instincts? For example, do you think murder is immoral because of the aversion you have to it, or can you supply pragmatic reasons for why that aversion might exist in the first place?

Secondly, you've said twice now that your religion helps you to understand why certain things are moral and immoral: care to share that why with the class?

Whoops, looks like I had a typo on that comment. I'm sorry it's confusing. I explained it more thoroughly on a comment I made prior to this one, where I say that for the basic stuff, we instinctively know right/wrong. Like hurting others. Though I do believe there are some finer points we may need help with.

Christianity has helped me understand the *why* behind certain things being immoral. I have also explained this a few times but it must have gotten lost  in everything else.

Basically, I believe human life is sacred because God created it that way. And so to destroy or hurt or disregard something sacred is wrong. If I believed we were nothing but material made from star dust, I would still believe hurting others is wrong, but I wouldn't quite understand why.

[The Grand Nudger]

If I believed we were nothing but material made from star dust, I would still believe hurting others is wrong, but I wouldn't quite understand why.

You're probably not a sociopath.....and I'd hate to call you a liar for this...but.......are you being entirely honest with us or yourself? You'd be at a loss as to explain why raping and pillaging, pushing old women into traffic and skull-fucking toddlers were wrong.....were it not for this "god" business? Really.....?

If that's the contention you have, if you want to run with it and have others see you as that person...then okay. If it's true, it's true.......but I think you may need to speak to someone other than the members of this forum about that.

Gotta say, I feel for you, must be a strange position to be in, I've never found myself in that position so my comments wouldn't mean much. That any of those things above is right or wrong doesn't have anything to do, for me, with who created us, for what, or -with- what.

[Jenny A]

I am sorry that so many of you are having a hard time with understanding/accepting the notion that the OT is written allegorically, especially when what Jesus teaches is so contradicting to the God that is depicted in the OT.

I feel like I have gotten more flack here for saying the OT is allegorical than I have on the uber fundamentalist Christian forums lol. Which is interesting.

I'd rather you thought the OT was allegorical than accept it factually.  But I can't imagine how you contrive to see it that way.  It certainly was not intended to be read allegorically by the people writing it, though in the case of Genesis and Exodus you might make a colorable argument to that effect.  Much of those two books might actually have been intended allegorically.

The law in Deuteronomy is not allegorical.  It was meant to be the law and the Hebrews attempted to follow it as such warts and all.  Joshua, Judges, Kings, and Chronicles were meant to be read as historical fact.  They are of course propaganda as much as history, but they were intended to be read as fact.  If you think otherwise, you are arguing against they way people those texts were meant for read them.

The Psalms are poetry and indeed much of them is metaphorical and allegorical.  It's the nature of poetry.

Proverbs are advice not allegory.

The prophets were intended to be read as written, admonitions to the Hebrews to behave in certain ways.  They don't really agree with each other about how to behave, but the general message is the same, do what god says or bad things happen.  They were not written as allegory they were written to explain why bad things happened to the Hebrew nations.  They were also written as hopeful propaganda for the promotion of a new Hebrew nation.

The NT on the other had is full of allegory.  What else is Revelations?  And Jesus spoke in parables.

[comet]

This is kind of a spinoff of the WHY BE GOOD thread.

The question I have for atheists, isn't "why by good." I think it's simplistic and deeply flawed to think that the only reason to "be good" is to avoid Hell. And of course, I believe that anyone can be a good person regardless of beliefs.

The question I have for atheists is how do we know what IS good?

Religious or not, we all somehow know that certain things are intrinsically, universally immoral. Let's use murder as an obvious example. So if murder is wrong, where did this law come from? If this is a universal truth, where did this truth come from and who/what determined it to be what it is?

we do the best we can with each other.  And using a "feeling" as a guide is fine when we are honest about it.  In the end, it is not what you believe it is about how we help each other dispite our differences.

[Jenny A]

Beg all you like, it won't help.  What you would have to do is -demonstrate-.  Would you accept such a response from me, would you find it persuasive?  I doubt it.

I'm Christian. I follow the teaching of Christ. What parts of the NT bother you so much?

The biggest problem I have, the reason that I couldn't be a catholic, the reason that I have a moral objection to christianity -even if it were all true-?  Vicarious redemption.  Hell and thoughtcrimes swiftly on the heels, but mostly the vicarious redemption.

^This^

Though there are all kinds of factual problems with the NT I certainly prefer it to the OT.  But while it's message as to how people should treat one another is much better than the OT (though by no means perfect), it's central premise that one innocent person (or god for that matter) can pay for other people's crimes is morally insane.   If I killed your brother (assuming you have one) would you feel better if my brother agreed to be hung?  But wait, there's another moral premise in the NT that is to my mind equally bad.  That is that the penalty for all infractions major or minor is eternal hellfire.  Moral punishment is proportional to the crime.  The NT is devoid of proportion.  Finally, it appears that the sacrifice of the innocent Jesus (odd though that premise is) isn't actually enough, there's an arbitrary addition that you have to believe in his resurrection despite the lack of evidence of it in order to reap the benefits of his sacrifice.  Let's go back to my self sacrificing brother, I get off Scott free but only if I (not you apparently) believe my brother died for me.   It's an insane proposition.  The whole thing turns morality as we know it on it's head.

[Minimalist]

I agree completely. Priests are to be held to higher standards and it's even worse when something like this is done by a person who claims to be a man of God. I was only saying that we shouldn't steroetype priests as molesters when so few of them do it, especially compared to other men. That's all I was saying.

How convenient that you ignore the actions of the church hierarchy in transferring pervert priests to new parishes.  Even Herr Von Popenfuhrer was guilty of that.  Why do you make excuses for these bastards who only cared about protecting their image and shielding their assets from the victims?

Have you no shame?

[Iroscato]

It's estimated that at bare minimum, 10% of the human race is homosexual. That's approaching a billion people.
If homosexuality is wrong, does it not strike you as odd that this god of yours keeps churning them out at a rate of several hundred thousand a day?

[Catholic_Lady]

If I believed we were nothing but material made from star dust, I would still believe hurting others is wrong, but I wouldn't quite understand why.

You're probably not a sociopath.....and I'd hate to call you a liar for this...but.......are you being entirely honest with us or yourself?  You'd be at a loss as to explain why raping and pillaging, pushing old women into traffic and skull-fucking toddlers were wrong.....were it not for this "god" business?  Really.....?

If that's the contention you have, if you want to run with it and have others see you as that person...then okay.  If it's true, it's true.......but I think you may need to speak to someone other than the members of this forum about that.

Gotta say, I feel for you, must be a strange position to be in, I've never found myself in that position so my comments wouldn't mean much.  That any of those things above is right or wrong doesn't have anything to do, for me, with who created us, for what, or -with- what.

I am being 100% honest. If I believed all we were was just material made from dust particles and nothing else, I would still know that hurting others is wrong. I would still feel sorry for people. But I wouldn't be able to explain *why* it would be so important to treat others well. I would know it was, but I wouldn't know where that came from.

---

I am sorry that so many of you are having a hard time with understanding/accepting the notion that the OT is written allegorically, especially when what Jesus teaches is so contradicting to the God that is depicted in the OT.

I feel like I have gotten more flack here for saying the OT is allegorical than I have on the uber fundamentalist Christian forums lol. Which is interesting.

I'd rather you thought the OT was allegorical than accept it factually.  But I can't imagine how you contrive to see it that way.  It certainly was not intended to be read allegorically by the people writing it, though in the case of Genesis and Exodus you might make a colorable argument to that effect.  Much of those two books might actually have been intended allegorically.

The law in Deuteronomy is not allegorical.  It was meant to be the law and the Hebrews attempted to follow it as such warts and all.  Joshua, Judges, Kings, and Chronicles were meant to be read as historical fact.  They are of course propaganda as much as history, but they were intended to be read as fact.  If you think otherwise, you are arguing against they way people those texts were meant for read them.

The Psalms are poetry and indeed much of them is metaphorical and allegorical.  It's the nature of poetry.

Proverbs are advice not allegory.

The prophets were intended to be read as written, admonitions to the Hebrews to behave in certain ways.  They don't really agree with each other about how to behave, but the general message is the same, do what god says or bad things happen.  They were not written as allegory they were written to explain why bad things happened to the Hebrew nations.  They were also written as hopeful propaganda for the promotion of a new Hebrew nation.

The NT on the other had is full of allegory.  What else is Revelations?  And Jesus spoke in parables.

I know from reading people's reactions that I have done a poor job of explaining the issues with the OT and why God seemed so different back then.

I have talked to Randy Carson about this via PM and he will soon be writing about this issue here. I think he will be better equipped to explain it than I could ever be. In the mean time, thank you all for being patient with me on this.

---

I agree completely. Priests are to be held to higher standards and it's even worse when something like this is done by a person who claims to be a man of God. I was only saying that we shouldn't steroetype priests as molesters when so few of them do it, especially compared to other men. That's all I was saying.

How convenient that you ignore the actions of the church hierarchy in transferring pervert priests to new parishes.  Even Herr Von Popenfuhrer was guilty of that.  Why do you make excuses for these bastards who only cared about protecting their image and shielding their assets from the victims?

Have you no shame?

I am sorry Minimalist, but I do not know where or when I made excuses for people who molest or for people who cover it up. I have repeatedly stated that those 2 things are very very wrong. I am sorry if I gave you the impression that I believe differently. Rest assured, such is definitely not the case.

---

It's estimated that at bare minimum, 10% of the human race is homosexual. That's approaching a billion people.
If homosexuality is wrong, does it not strike you as odd that this god of yours keeps churning them out at a rate of several hundred thousand a day?

Homosexuality is not wrong.

[The Grand Nudger]

I am being 100% honest. I still would know that hurting others is wrong. I would still feel sorry for people. But if I believed all we were was just... material, I wouldn't be able to explain *why* it would be so important to treat others well. I would know it was, but I wouldn't know where that came from.

Well, okay, if you say so........but, whats wrong with any of the numerous reasons given in this thread...or even in the response you just gave me..right up there while claiming you wouldn't know....that you have empathy? That's a powerful explanation that you, apparently, didn't realize that you just gave and that you, apparently, don;t know the source of. It's the same explanation given by a great many people. The source, btw, is you. It comes from you.

-Just like it does right now.....you've attributed to god and gods standard what you are plainly and demonstrably capable of yourself.- Hey, look, maybe there is a god and maybe he doess have standards and maybe they are objective...but you didn't need any of that to reach the explanation you -just gave-. All you needed was run of the mill human empathy. That's definitely good enough for me. You?